Watching people fuel their self-absorbed lives by chowing down on tortured animal carcasses makes my blood boil. I want to scream at these people. I wish that taking a strong moral stance around veganism as the moral baseline was working. But it just is not. It’s failing spectacularly, with rates of veganism stagnating as the number of animals in factory farms skyrockets.
I agree -- moralizing over responsibility is a very human response to seeing cruelty, but it doesn't do anything to actually stop the cruelty. But sometimes it feels like it does.
Idk if you control the podcast part at all, but the audio contrast makes it impossible to listen to. The narration is very quiet but then the quotes and image descriptions are deafeningly loud.
One strategy is to use shared interests to change incentives. Working within the framework that humans are selfish, we can think about what actions will produce the actual outcome we want. Not what actions we want to take, wishing they’d produce the outcome we hope for. The Save Our Bacon Act opposition actually has a flavor of this. Maybe some republicans are opposing this act due to their concerns toward animal welfare, democrat opposition almost certainly comes from that. However, for republicans I sense that the motivation is closer to opposing federal overreach. But so what? We just need to save animal lives as soon as possible. The common ground of X is bad is all we need. Regardless of the disagreement of why X is bad. Government subsidies are another way that conservatives would support opposition to factory farming if framed smartly. Liberals would still be better opposing it for the right reasons, but again, so what? We just want to spread the things that conservatives hate about X to conservatives and the things that liberals hate about X to liberals. They will support things that oppose factory farming because of it and meat will become more expensive to produce, more expensive to consume, and people will selfishly opt to buy less meat than they otherwise would. That’s not enough to get us where we need to be, but it’s a starting point and I’m tired of seeing obvious layups ignored for whatever reason I simply cannot seem to understand.
If you want to place blame, could it be at the Meat Industry? Did they push propoganda for increasing meat consumption? The Boomer generation seems to have grown up with the notion that you must eat meat in order to get your protein, and they in turn raised their children with this golden rule. These people are obseessed with geting their daily allowance of protein and believe it can only be done through the daily eating of meat. It seems to have carried over in to the subsequesnt generations. Generations before the Boomers did not eat meat on a daily basis, but this may have been more because of economics. Change this concept and craze of acquiring protein only from meat, and I predict there will be less people eating meat.
Interesting! If I'm reading you right, you're saying:
deontological views => focus on supply chain
consequentialist views => more willing to focus on individual consumers
This is the opposite of the way I see animal activists break based on ethical propensity! Utilitarian EA types are much less likely to focus on consumer advocacy, where Francione as the consummate abolitionist was entirely focused on individual vegan advocacy.
To your broader point, I'm not certain I agree that the overall post is conditioned on consequentialism, though I admit it's hard to tell because I certainly lean that way, and some of the more extended claims certainly are. But I used to be more rights-based and I still wanted to be an effective activist!
Perfection. This says it all:
Watching people fuel their self-absorbed lives by chowing down on tortured animal carcasses makes my blood boil. I want to scream at these people. I wish that taking a strong moral stance around veganism as the moral baseline was working. But it just is not. It’s failing spectacularly, with rates of veganism stagnating as the number of animals in factory farms skyrockets.
I agree -- moralizing over responsibility is a very human response to seeing cruelty, but it doesn't do anything to actually stop the cruelty. But sometimes it feels like it does.
This writing felt good on my brain. Thanks Aidan. Keep rocking the bolo ties 🎸
Idk if you control the podcast part at all, but the audio contrast makes it impossible to listen to. The narration is very quiet but then the quotes and image descriptions are deafeningly loud.
Thanks for flagging, I just tried correcting that so it should be better now!
One strategy is to use shared interests to change incentives. Working within the framework that humans are selfish, we can think about what actions will produce the actual outcome we want. Not what actions we want to take, wishing they’d produce the outcome we hope for. The Save Our Bacon Act opposition actually has a flavor of this. Maybe some republicans are opposing this act due to their concerns toward animal welfare, democrat opposition almost certainly comes from that. However, for republicans I sense that the motivation is closer to opposing federal overreach. But so what? We just need to save animal lives as soon as possible. The common ground of X is bad is all we need. Regardless of the disagreement of why X is bad. Government subsidies are another way that conservatives would support opposition to factory farming if framed smartly. Liberals would still be better opposing it for the right reasons, but again, so what? We just want to spread the things that conservatives hate about X to conservatives and the things that liberals hate about X to liberals. They will support things that oppose factory farming because of it and meat will become more expensive to produce, more expensive to consume, and people will selfishly opt to buy less meat than they otherwise would. That’s not enough to get us where we need to be, but it’s a starting point and I’m tired of seeing obvious layups ignored for whatever reason I simply cannot seem to understand.
Do you not understand that this piece of writing is itself an act of moral philosophy, Aidan?
Great article!
Why the past-tense on Francione? I Googled him just now to make sure I didn't miss anything; pretty sure he's alive.
If you want to place blame, could it be at the Meat Industry? Did they push propoganda for increasing meat consumption? The Boomer generation seems to have grown up with the notion that you must eat meat in order to get your protein, and they in turn raised their children with this golden rule. These people are obseessed with geting their daily allowance of protein and believe it can only be done through the daily eating of meat. It seems to have carried over in to the subsequesnt generations. Generations before the Boomers did not eat meat on a daily basis, but this may have been more because of economics. Change this concept and craze of acquiring protein only from meat, and I predict there will be less people eating meat.
Interesting! If I'm reading you right, you're saying:
deontological views => focus on supply chain
consequentialist views => more willing to focus on individual consumers
This is the opposite of the way I see animal activists break based on ethical propensity! Utilitarian EA types are much less likely to focus on consumer advocacy, where Francione as the consummate abolitionist was entirely focused on individual vegan advocacy.
To your broader point, I'm not certain I agree that the overall post is conditioned on consequentialism, though I admit it's hard to tell because I certainly lean that way, and some of the more extended claims certainly are. But I used to be more rights-based and I still wanted to be an effective activist!